Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-18521             January 30, 1964
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES,
KWAN KWOCK HOW, petitioner-appellee,
vs.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.
P. B. de Jesus for petitioner-appellee.
Office of the Solicitor General for oppositor-appellant.
REYES, J.B.L., J.:
Appeal by the Government from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Tarlac, Fourth Judicial District (in its Naturalization Case No. 65), declaring petitioner Kwan Kwock How entitled to be admitted as a citizen of the Philippines.
The principal controversy centers on the sufficiency of the allegations in the petition and the affidavits of the supporting witnesses, Telesforo G. Espinosa and Justito M. Lenon. The government insists that the allegations are insufficient to justify the Court's acting on the petition. 1äwphï1.ñët
With regard to the supporting witnesses, their joint affidavit attached to the petition is to the following effect (Rec. Appeal, pp. 5-6):
JOINT AFFIDAVIT
We, TELESFORO G. ESPINOSA and JUSTITO M. LENON, both of legal age, married, Filipino, and residents of Tarlac, Tarlac, under oath, depose and say;
That we are Filipino citizens who have been residing at Tarlac, Tarlac, for over twenty-five (25) years;
That we have known Kwan Kwock How since childhood to be a hard-working, law-abiding, God-fearing person, who is and has always been a credit to the community in which he lives;
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands at Tarlac, Tarlac, this 6th day of June, 1960.
(Sgd.) TELESFORO G. ESPINOSA
Affiant          
(Sgd.) JUSTITO M. LENON
Affiant          
The law (section 7, Commonwealth Act No. 473) inquires that every petition for naturalization must be supported by the affidavit of at least (2) credible persons stating that (1) they are citizens of the Philippines; (2) that they personally know the petitioner to be a resident of Philippines for the period of time required by this Act; (3) that he is a person of good repute (4) morally irreproachable; (5) that petitioner has, in their opinion, the qualifications necessary to be a citizen of the Philippines; and (6) is not in any way disqualified under provisions of the Act.
A comparison of there requirements with the facts stated in the affidavit of the certifying witnesses attached to petition reveals the insufficiency of the latter. Not only because to have known petitioner since childhood is vague a statement to satisfy the statutory requirement that the witnesses must have known the applicant to be a resident of the Philippines for the period prescribed, principally because the witnesses' opinion that he is a "hardworking, law-abiding, God-fearing person" and "a credit to the community" does not meet the requirement about certification that the applicant is "of good repute" (which primarily means the opinion of the community about claim, not just the opinion of two individuals), can not be deemed equivalent to knowing applicant to morally irreproachable". As to petitioner's possessing qualifications and none of the disqualifications demanded by the law, the affidavit of the witnesses is silent.
A comparison with the affidavits held insufficient by this Court in Pidelo vs. Republic, L-7796, September 29, 1955, and in Ong. vs. Republic, 55 O.G. 3290, readily shows that the affidavit of the supporting witnesses in the president case is equally, if not more, deficient.
This non-compliance with the statutory requirements relative to the contents of the annexes to the petition for naturalization renders the same void (In re Robert Cu, L-3018, decided on July 18, 1951; Pidelo vs. Republic, ante; Ong vs. Republic, ante, and cases cited therein; U.S. vs. Martorana, 171 Fed. Rep. 397). In the Ong case, this Court ruled as follows:
... Similarly, the affiants must attest that the petitioner is "morally irreproachable," not merely good. Moreover, the affidavits must show affirmatively that petitioner has all the requisite qualifications and is "not in anyway disqualified" to become a naturalized citizen. Failure to disclose the existence of any disqualification is not enough. If it were, then the affidavits could be totally dispensed with. Our Naturalization Law demands, not only a showing in the petition, that the applicant has all the necessary qualifications and none of the aforesaid disqualifications, but, also, that the petition and its aforementioned allegations be backed up by two (2) "credible" citizens of the Philippines, who affirmatively indorse said petition and warrant the truth of its allegations, as well as the worthiness of the applicant to be an integral part of our body politic. Such indorsement and warranty are a condition precedent to the consideration of the petition. They are entirely distinct and different, and, in a way, independent, from the question whether, after due notice and hearing, the court should render judgment granting the petition, in the light of the evidence of record. Said condition refers to the pleadings or procedure. The judgment deals with the merits of the case, and affects the substantive tights of the petitioner.(55 O.G., pp. 3292- 3293)
The contention of the applicant that the deficiencies in this witnesses' affidavit was cured by the testimony of the witnesses at the trial is of no value, considering that the fiscal precisely objected to such curative testimony. This objection distinguishes the case at bar from that of Yu Yao vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-14184, August 31, 1960.
The Solicitor General likewise points out that the petition itself fails to aver all the facts that the law requires to be specified, particularly those required in section 7, and those specified in the later portion of paragraph 12 of the official form, to wit: That the applicant will reside continuously in the Philippines from the date of the filing of his application up to the time of his admission to citizenship (sec. 7, Comm. Act 473); that he associates mingles socially with Filipinos, and has evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs, traditions, ideals of the Filipinos.
Petitioner-appellee particularly admits these deficient but contends that the objections were not raised in court below.
This defense is unavailable. Petitions for naturalize involve the public interest; hence, on appeal, the entire record is open to scrutiny, whether objection is made or not. Naturalization being a privilege and not a right, the burden is on the applicant to show clearly that he complied with every condition that the law imposes.
Another serious objection against the appellee is fact that he was shown to have been baptized as "Alipio Koan" (Exh. U), yet the application fails to mention alternative name. As a result, the notices published likewise omit it, only mentioning the Chinese appellation of Kwan Kwock How. As this Court has ruled in the case of Yu Seco vs. Republic, L-13441, June 30, 1960, this defect is fatal because persons who might have derogatory information against Alipio Koan might not come forward with it in belief that applicant Kwan Kwock How was a different son, thus defeating the avowed purpose of the law in inquiring the publication of the application, i.e., "so that those who may know of any legal objection to it might come forward with the information in order to determine the fitness of petitioner for Philippine citizenship" (Ng Bui Kui vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-11172, Dec. 22, 1958).
It is no excuse that applicant-appellee should have testified as follows:
Court: Did you use the name Alipio Koan in your business transaction?
A No sir, I never used it.
since his non-user of the baptismal name in business transactions does not preclude his having used it for other purposes, and derogatory information against the application that would bar him from citizenship is not limited to conduct in connection with business practices.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the decision appealed from is reversed, and the application dismissed. Costs against applicant-appellee.
Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
Barrera, J., took no part.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation